436 reputation
49
bio website
location
age
visits member for 2 years, 8 months
seen Jun 16 '13 at 16:33

Jan
15
awarded  Enlightened
Jan
15
awarded  Nice Answer
Dec
14
awarded  Yearling
Jun
25
awarded  Revival
Apr
19
comment Hejhal's algorithm and computational methods for non-classical Maass wave forms
I think the paper on his home page is the same as the one he posted to the ArXiv: sites.google.com/site/mboris
Apr
18
answered Hejhal's algorithm and computational methods for non-classical Maass wave forms
Apr
17
revised central/critical/special values of L-functions terminology
added 159 characters in body; edited body
Apr
17
comment central/critical/special values of L-functions terminology
I wrote the question in the "arithmetic" normalization, with $s$ going to $w+1-s$ in the functional equation. I know that "most" L-functions are not motivic, but my understanding is that the concept of special/critical values only makes sense for motivic L-functions. You wouldn't say, for example, that every integer is a critical point for the L-function of a Maass form. There are times when you want to normalize the L-function so that $s$ goes to $1-s$, but this is not one of those times.
Apr
17
asked central/critical/special values of L-functions terminology
Mar
21
comment Is there an explicit expression for the imaginary part of some non-trivial zero of zeta,
Greg, Not even close: we can't even prove that for degree 2. It is not even known that the members of the Selberg class, of degree 2 or more, have Euler products whose local factors are the reciprocal of a polynomial. (I saw something along those lines -- I forget the details -- from Kaczorowski and Perelli, but what I wrote is definitely true for "degree more than 2.")
Mar
20
revised Is there an explicit expression for the imaginary part of some non-trivial zero of zeta,
added 1035 characters in body
Mar
18
comment Is there an explicit expression for the imaginary part of some non-trivial zero of zeta,
Paul, It is conjectured that the factorization of L-functions into primitive L-functions is unique. This follows from the Selberg Orthonormality Conjecture. Unique factorization implies that you can't "split up" the cancellation of zeros of one L-function by part of the zeros of several different L-functions. So (assuming appropriate conjectures) the Artin L-function can only be entire if there is a cancellation of actual L-functions in the numerator and denominator.
Mar
18
comment Is there an explicit expression for the imaginary part of some non-trivial zero of zeta,
If an Artin L-function was genuinely a ratio, and not a product, of other L-functions (in other words, if it had infinitely many poles) then it does not deserve to be called an L-function! For this discussion I think it makes sense to assume all reasonable conjectures.
Mar
18
answered Is there an explicit expression for the imaginary part of some non-trivial zero of zeta,
Feb
28
comment Small index subgroups of SL(3,Z)
Great answer. I wish I could "accept" two answers.
Feb
28
accepted Small index subgroups of SL(3,Z)
Feb
27
awarded  Nice Question
Feb
26
awarded  Scholar
Feb
25
awarded  Yearling
Feb
25
comment Small index subgroups of SL(3,Z)
A step I am missing is why the subgroup of $SL(3,Z)$ has to be the pullback of a subgroup of $SL(3,n)$. Is maximality being used? If $G$ is the subgroup, I get that there exists $H<G$ so that $H$ is the matrices congruent to the identity mod $n$, for some integer $n$. Probably I am missing something easy for the next step.